Upper Great Lakes Study Recommendation on Multi-lake Regulation

1. Upper Great Lakes StudyRecommendation on Multi-lake Regulation Protecting the $5.1 trillion Great Lakes Regional Economy March 2013

2. Executive Summary The following slides introduce the pedigree of the materials sourced for this review, Georgian Bay Forever and the evolution of our thinking over the past 18 years as well as the introduction of the solutions presented by those sources. This slide deck has been abbreviated to allow transmission via email. The complete presentation can be delivered in person by contacting David Sweetnam, executivedirector@georgianbayforever.org .

3. Sources of Information • All data presented is from official government sources and is scientifically validated by recognized authorities including: • International Upper Great Lakes Study Board • International Joint Commission (IJC) • US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • Environment Canada (EC)

4. As a charity that has closely participated in the Great Lakes water levels debate for the last 18 years, we have reached the following conclusions: • Low water levels are expected to continue to decline due to climate change impacts and must be addressed in the context of the Great Lakes system as a whole. • Low water levels have economic as well as environmental impacts running in the billions of dollars.

5. To date much attention has been paid to the St. Clair River as the best place to focus remediation and mitigation efforts. • While this may intuitively seem appropriate detailed investigation reveals that on its own no benefits can be delivered in the face of climate change impacts. • Our review of the latest reports leads us to support a system wide approach and alternative sighting.

6. “None of the St. Clair River three-point plans was able to provide improved performance throughout the system for all eight NBS scenarios.” Upper Great Lakes Study Board, Final Report. p139. LAKE SUPERIOR REGULATION: ADDRESSING UNCERTAINTY IN UPPER GREAT LAKESWATER LEVELS FINAL REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION MARCH 2012. p 139.

7. IMPACTS ON UPPER GREAT LAKES WATER LEVELS: ST. CLAIR RIVER FINAL REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION. DECEMBER 2009

9. Multi-lake Regulation Multi-lake regulation • “the possibility of operating regulation structures to benefit the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system as a whole to keep the entire system within observed historical extremes on all lakes under more extreme climate conditions in the future.” LAKE SUPERIOR REGULATION: ADDRESSING UNCERTAINTY IN UPPER GREAT LAKESWATER LEVELS FINAL REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION MARCH 2012.

10. There is a solution The addition of an optimized regulatory structure in the Niagara River has been modelled to eliminate all of the expected water level extremes.

11. There is a solution that works $1.8 Billion Niagara 3-pt. Plan (Optimised to NBS Scenario 7 Only) is not illustrated as all values equal zero LAKE SUPERIOR REGULATION: ADDRESSING UNCERTAINTY IN UPPER GREAT LAKESWATER LEVELS FINAL REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION MARCH 2012. p 147.

12. How does it work? -- Hydrological Connectivity • The effects of such conveyance changes, from Michigan-Huron down to the Niagara River, are simulated using the Coordinated Great Lakes Routing and Regulation Model (CGLRRM). • The increase in Lake Erie water level would be within historic extremes and fluctuate seasonally for healthy ecosystems • This would slow the flow in the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River • This in turn raises water levels in Lake Michigan-Huron

13. Lake Erie Niagara River

14. Proven technologies exist Thames River Barrier

16. $1.8 billion was only a relative value to allow inter-comparisons between solutions • Would be shared between Canada and the US • Would be paid for over the project period • Would be amortized over the life of the structure • Would eliminate billions of dollars in annual costs to the $5.1 trillion Great Lakes Regional economy • Would be invested in concert with expenditures anticipated for Great Lakes Navigation System repairs and enhancements • Would create jobs in a period of infrastructure investments • $1.8 billion was only a relative value to allow inter-comparisons between solutions • Would be shared between Canada and the US • Would be paid for over the project period • Would be amortized over the life of the structure • Would eliminate billions of dollars in annual costs to the $5.1 trillion Great Lakes Regional economy • Would be invested in concert with expenditures anticipated for Great Lakes Navigation System repairs and enhancements • Would create jobs in a period of infrastructure investments

17. Benefits • Addresses the impact of flashy weather systems, eliminating high and low extremes; • Provides resilience and sustainability for Great Lakes regional economy; • Treats all the Great Lakes and their users in an equitable manner; and • Addresses the source of the problem rather than endlessly reacting to it.

18. Challenges • Solutions cost money with no upside in terms of potential private-public partnerships and future revenue streams, such as hydroelectric projects have provided in the past • Require bi-national decisions/co-operation …therefore we need to know the economic impact of inaction

19. Georgian Bay Forever is initiating this study in partnership with the Mowat Centre at the University of Toronto. • This has already been proposed as the inaugural bi-national project for the Council of the Great Lakes Region • Widespread support and funding for this project is coming from a number of tier one economic stakeholders • Support is being requested from the Ontario Government

20. Further declines over the coming decades are expected • Institutional requirements suggest this decision must be made now to have impacts over the next decade

21. Should be asked to examine structures developed post 1977 limit imposed in previous mandate. • “Four different structural options were examined based on the results of a detailed literature review…they are only those that have been proposed in past studies.” Options for Restoring Lake Michigan-Huron Water Levels: An Exploratory Analysis FINAL REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION MAY 2011. p163

22. “Even with imperfect but improved knowledge, it may be possible to develop MLR plans that deliver better performance and at lower costs. As a result, it may be advisable to revisit such plans as knowledge improves about the future climate conditions and the resulting impacts on water levels in the Great Lakes.” LAKE SUPERIOR REGULATION: ADDRESSING UNCERTAINTY IN UPPER GREAT LAKESWATER LEVELS FINAL REPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION MARCH 2012. p 148.

23. Thames River Barrier

24. Regulation v. Adaptive Management Proactive Multi Lake Regulation Adaptive Management Mitigate the impacts of expected extremes by implementing solutions designed to avoid these extremes Allow these extremes to occur but try to manage the associated risks through complex bureaucratic systems? Reactive

25. Adaptive Management is needed in the short term but is not a viable long-term option: • Adverse Economic impacts to the $5.1 trillion dollar Great Lakes regional economy • Shipping and Ports • Gypsum • Steel • Auto manufacturing • Fisheries • Municipal and commercial Water Supplies • Power Generation

26. We know that water levels are expected to decline and costs to adapt will continue to climb. • We know enough technically to conclude that something can be done. • We know that flexible regulation is better than fixed restoration. • We know that proven technologies exist elsewhere that could be applied. • We know that investments are reasonable given the economic impacts expected and already occurring. • We recommend a pre-engineering design review of multi-lake regulation.

27. Questions? David Sweetnam executivedirector@georgianbayforever.org www.georgianbayforever.org Photo Credit: David Sweetnam